Discussion: Does the game influence DMing styles?

The short answer is that yes, the game design influences what table play looks like. And I’ll say I think this article by Monte is a really great one. This is assuming his article are meant to get people discussing design and it’s assumptions and how they effect the play of the game we love. In this case, you’ve got it right. It comes down to a question of “can players roll to figure it out, or do they need to think it through?”.

There has been many gallons of digital ink spilled in recent gaming design circles that the game should challenge characters rather than players. Almost in every case, the example given is that a player is controlling a smooth talking character when the actual player is stiff and not very quick on his feet verbally. That character is wasted if he depends on the skills of his player. The problem isn’t whether or not this is a valid concern. I think it is. The problem becomes when this mentality is the basis for design at the exclusion of the other school of thought, something I think 4E has done. Admittedly, it’s a good system and 4E works well. But the unintended side effect is exactly what you (and Monte) mention. Players begin to believe that whatever they need to find will be no further than their character sheet (Monte) and DMs begin to get lazy, designing encounters that can be completed with little more than successful skill or attack rolls (you). In both cases, I think that there can exist a middle ground.

The problem I have as a DM is that players have grown accustomed to this view. As they should since it has been the predominant mode for the last decade. But sometimes I want to challenge my players as well as their characters. I think there is a place for challenging players. The response to this is often “we don’t want to play read the DM’s mind”. But this isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about a DM who makes up a single insoluable solution and expects his players to figure it out. (although this CAN have some merit if done correctly with lots of fun clues and hints and the ability of the characters to do research and interrogate). I’m talking about a game where problems have no immediate solutions, or at least no planned solutions. It’s then left up to players to puzzle it out using their characters abilities. You can kind of do this in 4E but the way skills are designed, the activity that is promoted is one of “how can I explain this in such a way that a can roll against a trained skill” or “shoot, I don’t have the right skill so I’ll just sit quietly”. I like the game as a roleplay vehicle but not at the expense of actual interaction between friends in a social setting. it’s a fine balance that must be struck, no question. I’m just thrilled that Monte is raising these questions and I’m particularly happy that he doesn’t seem to be engaging in the “how can I justify changes to mirror third edition?” nonsense.

Absolutely. 3rd edition and 4th edition at my tables lean more towards “solving problems by scanning my character sheet for answers” while earlier editions definitely had less of that. Mostly because there was less on the character sheet.

Sometimes I think that what 3rd edition did was take something that was generally true for a single class at my tables (mid-level magic-users) and extend it out to all classes. My mid-level magic-user characters would often scan their character sheets trying to figure out what spell they could cast to get past whatever challenge was in front of them. When 3rd edition hit everyone started doing the same thing, but with skills instead of spells.

And to be fair – it isn’t just the edition. Any game with a skill list that I’ve played has tended toward “scan the skill list to find a skill that might solve the problem”. It’s like playing Zork but with a skill list instead of an inventory of items. I think because most DMs want to be fair to players and if a player put points into a skill they should get some benefit from it – and the only benefit that the game gives is x% chance of success when using that skill.

My personal view is that a lot of the creativity of earlier edition play was due to the rules being non-existant or inconsistent. Simple things like how infravision (darkvision) worked, how you moved from outdoor to indoor distances, how you detected things were just not clear. You also had a lot of designer commentary, what amounted to “I think this is cool”, such as suggestions that the gods might directly get involved at times. You also had so many strange and cumbersome rules that no group would use all of them. All of it meant players were on their own and each group played differently and had to engage creatively. “Can I hide from the monster” became subjective, and thus played out creatively as DM and player engaged in storytelling, described rooms, and chose tactics.

As editions increasingly wrote clear rules that covered most of the questions, there was less need for interpretation and less variance between groups. The current state is that for 99% of all situations, there is an answer and a “correct” way to play. Gamers learn it and become masters of the game. And because it is so well thought out, the game becomes defined, rational, static, comfortable. “Can I hide from the monster?” is answered by the book and no longer needs discussion… nor innovation.

And yet, we want creativity. We want to go back to what we are doing, which is playing-dreaming-exploring-acting-improvising-storytelling. When the rules are so good, there is always a universally understood appropriate answer to any situation. A room with chasms and traps, an artillery in the back, and soldiers in the front… that has solutions within the game. Athletics checks, ranged powers, teleportation, etc. It’s cool, because it is deploy-able fun puzzle-like strategy (and it does have story!) But it lacks improvisation.

Then comes the catch-22. If we create a non-standard solution that is better than the rules, we encourage out-of-the-box play, but we now create a new layer of erratic unpredictable gaming (similar to the original rules). We say, “yeah, you can hide if you use a minor action to throw sand in the ogre’s eyes,” or “sure, if you attack the crate it could be pushed into the chasm, creating a bridge”. But when we do that we create an expectation that this may work in the future. We also run the risk of optimizing through creativity. The game is so heavily built on optimization, that when you can blind the ogre by throwing sand in its eyes _and_ also attack it falls apart (and just blinding as a standard is too weak). As writers and even DMs, creative stuff runs the risk of offending/angering players. Picture an Encounters session where the combat should be won by skill use instead of combat… I can imagine the anger on the forums that it wasn’t absolutely clear, that this table was TPKd, that it invalidated this player’s build, etc.

Now, the reality is you _can_ have both. You can be highly codified and have creativity. It takes really experienced or patient/understanding gamers, however. Or, it takes very careful writing of the rules to showcase how the game expects to incorporate out-of-the-box thinking. The 4E rules, especially the PH and other early tomes, left all of that out. It was all about the rules. To get people to play differently we have to codify the uncodifiable, and not just in the DMG under “actions the rules don’t cover”. It has to be on most pages and with many examples so that we can consistently innovate together regardless of expertise level.

I both like ad dislike the discussions by Monte. He raises good questions, but his articles are not very well written and kind of incoherent in my opinion.

I wanted to put forward the same points as Brian and Jer above. The more options you have on your character sheet, the less creative you will be. I noticed this when playing a 3d edition fighter and wizard at the same time. I liked playing the fighter MUCH more, because with the fighter I was more engaged in the game and more creative. As such, I’m a big fan of less rules and less complexity. And I really don’t like 4th edition, because I already HAD lots of fun with fighters without powers (even more fun than with wizards). But that is very personal of course.
Of course, having more options on your sheet doesn’t FORCE you to look at them, but it is a very easy pitfall, one to which I am very prone.

I think a DM can help players to still look for out-of-the-box solutions. One of the things that needs to be very clear is that the DM is the one saying how a special situation will be handled, and that it will always be a ‘special’ situation. Its best to very clearly communicate this with your group, and let everyone agree beforehand. That way a DM can sometimes reward originality, without it becoming to powerful from overusing the ‘sand-in-the-eyes’ tactic for example. And yes, creative solutions should be rewarded as much as possible, so result in a benefit compared to just using one of your powers. It should however NOT be rewarded if you want to use that same creative solution over and over again ;).

Finally, I think it is very important for a DM to always, always ask for a description. So you say you want to use a bluff check to distract the ogre so you can backstab him. Fine, what kind of bluff are you using? Oh, you want to convince the ogre to turn around because there is a three-headed monkey? Well, this ogre happens to have heard stories of three-headed monkeys when he was a child, so a +2 to your check! Or, maybe that’s a really bad lie, and you get a -2. (although I would advice to only give bonuses, and never penalties, unless its something really stupid).

This way, you always have to THINK on what you do, but then use a die roll to work out what actually happens. So you bled both systems. And of course, in the end, even in ‘solvable by die roll situations’ players can still come up with really original solutions not covered by powers or rules, and then you just go with it! (The good old ‘never say no’ rule).